On 12-04-12 07:14 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
> That said, the situation here, as I see it is: > - there is a known defect *in our stack* > - if that defect was fixed, your scenario would work (the collection > would naturally DTRT) > - fixing the defect should not be particularly large or onerous, for > all that it may be unfamiliar territory. > > And you're proposing to not fix the defect, but instead propogate a workaround. > > This doesn't make sense to me, it keeps the cost of maintenance and > ongoing development higher. > > If the cost of fixing the underlying defect was going to be very high, > it would be a different matter. > I think I disagree, it's a couple of days work at least for someone familiar with all the indirect coupling going on. So I think we can safely move forward with the existing pattern and the very marginal maintenance cost upgrade. Especially, since he proposed fixing another bug (the load() one which is plaguing a lot of users). -- Francis J. Lacoste francis.laco...@canonical.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
